Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7071452" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Thanks for clarifying the DW mechanics a bit for me. I get it a bit better now. Does not sound at all like something I'd be interested in except as a one off or change of pace type of game. From what I can see, GM judgment absolutely comes into both games, just in different ways. In D&D, the DM sets the DC of a proposed task based on prevailing conditions within the fiction, which can largely determine failure or success on the PC's part. Where as DW seems to have set target numbers for any and all actions, and then the GM uses his judgment to determine the specific outcome. I can certainly see how the D&D style lends itself more to the Storyteller GM approach as you have described it. I agree with that. However, I don't think that it must be so by any stretch. And I would also say that DW seems just as subject to GM manipulation, it would just come about in a different way. Fair enough. Do you think that I could describe the action you've provided through the lens of 5E mechanics and come up with the same result? I would expect so. In your description of hte player declaration/action resolution dynamic, I don't see any reason that 5E must go about things differently. I used the term side trek just for ease of reference, and because it seems to be somewhat tangential to the main story....meaning that if the PC had succeeded and not forced a hard move on your part, he would not have fallen into the river and been swept away. I also kind of view it as a side trek (in a loose sense) because of practical concerns of play; for instance, what are the other players doing while this is all happening? It does clarify things a bit, I think. I think that, in my personal games, campaigns tend to have some kind of central theme to them, or central goal or task. very often this is at least loosely determined prior to the start of the campaign. Not always, but in general. So for example, a campaign may be something like "this is the story of the frontier town of Bastion and its peoples' struggles in a harsh environment" or "this is the story of a group of people, all wronged in some way by the Duke of Westmont, seeking revenge" or something similar. Some can be very specific, others can be very loos. For instance, my current campaign started out as test of 5E by running through Lost Mines of Phandelver. Once we played that pre-published module, and everyone seemed happy with 5E and their character choices, we continued play and the campaign started taking on a much larger scope as they now interacted with a much larger world. To me that is a GM driven approach....but I don't think that it prevents the players from also driving play. They're free to proceed however they'd like in many ways. I do have enemies in mind, and specific story ideas that I expect to come up...but no preconceived outcomes. How everything plays out very much depends on the players and the choices they make. In that way, I think it's different than the Fronts system from DW that you've described, but not all that different as it may first seem, I think. DW has a map representing a physical location, with a couple of detailed Fronts and then a bunch of blanks. My campaign could be similarly described....except that the "map" wouldn't be a physical location so much as story options.</blockquote>

Verification